Jul 31, 2013

We are requesting information from the public regarding
whether and how we should change our rules of administrative finality.
These rules govern when we can reopen and revise a determination or
decision that has become final and is no longer subject to
administrative or judicial review. ...

We are considering changing our rules of administrative finality for a variety of reasons:

We take our responsibility as effective stewards of the trust
funds very seriously. Modifying our rules would enable us to take
corrective action on more cases, and could decrease the amount of
improper payments that we make.

Our current rules are complex to administer. The fact that our
rules under title II and title XVI contain different timeframes for
reopening for good cause can result in confusion for our adjudicators
and the public, particularly in situations where an individual is
concurrently receiving benefits under title II and title XVI of the
Act.

The current rules may prevent us from making changes regardless
of the possible outcome for the individual. For example, if an
individual presents or we discover new and material evidence after the
time period that would allow us to reopen, we cannot take corrective
action and revise the determination or decision. Modifying our rules to
change certain timeframes for reopening may enable us to take
corrective actions on more cases.

The Office of the Inspector General has recommended that we
review our rules on administrative finality to find ways that will
allow us to correct more erroneous payments.

Some of our administrative finality rules have not been revised
in sixty years. Over the years, there has been an increase in our
workloads and the complexity of our programs. Updating the rules would
allow us to reflect these changes.

Finally, modifying our current rules would enable us to
streamline and simplify our rules on administrative finality. We
believe this would allow us to operate more efficiently in a
challenging, limited-resource environment.

A former Social Security Administration worker caught on camera
masturbating to child pornography while on the clock has been sentenced
to five years in prison.

Caught with a staggering 3,772 photos and videos showing children
being sexually assaulted, Thomas Barrett Jr. was investigated after his
Internet trolling for child porn brought a computer virus onto a Social
Security network.

Investigators found Barrett, 50, had been searching for child porn on
his work computer in November and set up a camera watching his work
station, located at the Social Security Administration’s Seattle office.

Shortly thereafter, Barrett was recorded fondling himself while
viewing photos of a man sexually assaulting a young girl. Prosecutors
noted Barrett appeared to bounce between the child porn and his actual
work in an apparent effort to hide the rape photos from his coworkers.

Jul 30, 2013

The Washington Examiner is running a bizarrely slanted piece on Social Security disability benefits. I think this goes well past the line between journalism and propaganda, starting with calling Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits "unearned" disability benefits. You could call it that but I don't think anyone previously has called it that. I don't know why you would use that term unless you were deliberately trying to be pejorative.

The piece are headlines such as "Many say they're on disability simply because they can't find a job or are picky..." followed by a chart saying that 11% of SSI recipients report that they cannot find a job they want, a result which may have as much to do with the way the question was phrased as anything else. Should you answer this yes or no if you cannot find a job you're capable of performing? Why would you want a job you're not capable of performing?

If you want to believe that everyone drawing disability benefits is a lazy bum, you'll love this piece. Otherwise, you'll probably find it weird, annoying or just boring.

Jul 29, 2013

I. This final rule adopts, without change, the interim final rule
with request for comments we published in the Federal Register on
January 12, 2012, at 77 FR 1862. The interim final rule modified our
rules so that we may send a Ticket to Work (Ticket) to Ticket to Work
program (Ticket program)-eligible disabled beneficiaries. Under our
previous rules, we mailed initial Ticket notices to all Ticket-eligible
beneficiaries immediately after they began receiving benefits,
regardless of whether they were likely to participate in the program.
This change did not affect Ticket eligibility requirements.

II. We are extending for 2 years our rule authorizing attorney
advisors to conduct certain prehearing procedures and to issue fully
favorable decisions. The current rule will expire on August 9, 2013. In
this final rule, we are extending the sunset date to August 7, 2015. We
are making no other substantive changes.

III. We are extending our pilot program that authorizes the agency
to set the time and place for a hearing before an administrative law
judge (ALJ). This final rule will extend the pilot program for 1 year.
The extension of the pilot program continues our commitment to improve
the efficiency of our hearing process and maintain a hearing process
that results in accurate, high-quality decisions for claimants. The
current pilot program will expire on August 9, 2013. In this final
rule, we are extending the effective date to August 9, 2014. We are
making no other substantive changes.

Jul 28, 2013

Words are important. They change the world by informing, inspiring and directing. However, they can also be empty and meaningless. That's the case with Facing the Challenges -- Envisioning the Future, a paper produced by the Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB). Reading this paper is like chewing styrofoam. It is packed with blindingly obvious advice. As an example, the paper recommends that "the plan for the placement of field offices, indeed any SSA facilities, should be proactive, flexible and have the ability to customize services to circumstances such as geographic location, the individuals who live in the service area, and any other contributing factors." I'm sure that Social Security's leaders will keep this masterpiece on their desks.

Jul 27, 2013

The Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prevented Social Security from recognizing same sex marriages, was unconstitutional on June 26, 2013. That was more than a month ago. While Social Security has sent out a press release saying it is "taking" claims for benefits based upon same sex marriages, it has instructed its staff to do NOTHING with these claims. How much longer will it be before Social Security starts to act on these claims?

The dodge of saying "we're taking claims" can't work much longer. Eventually, the main stream media will figure out that simply "taking claims" is meaningless. It's what you do with the claims that counts. Holding them for months and months is little different from denying them. The main stream media will be asking questions in the near future. The agency and the administration can't just think about this subject for the next six months or so.

Jul 26, 2013

In his tenure with the Social Security Administration in Oklahoma and
western Arkansas, Dennis Purifoy has weathered turbulence and change
and navigated tragedy and triumph.

He’ll step down from the agency Aug. 2 after 40 years. ...

As a claims representative in Stillwater, Purifoy intended to work
for the SSA for a couple of years before pursuing other opportunities.
After 40 years, he is glad he stuck around.

“From Stillwater to Shawnee and then Hot Springs in Arkansas, I’ve
enjoyed my job every step of the way,” Purifoy said. “I was the manager
in the Clinton office, where I was introduced to my wife, before I went
to OKC and was there during the bombing before coming here (Moore).”

Purifoy was inside the Oklahoma City SSA office, where 16 employees
were killed, when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed April
19, 1995. ...

“I wouldn’t call it a highlight, but, of course, it sticks in my
memory,” Purifoy said, recalling the bombing. “That was a rough day,
but,” he said, brightening, “we had the office open and serving people
in Shepherd Mall, where it is today, in one month.” ...

That was not the last time Purifoy witnessed an emergency first-hand
while at work. Four years later, he was conducting a pre-retirement
class at the United Auto Workers Local 1999 union hall near the
now-closed General Motors plant on Southeast 74th Street in Oklahoma
City when it was destroyed by the May 8, 2003, tornado. ...

Jul 25, 2013

I don't want to get too deep in the weeds on former Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue's new job with VIVUS but it looks like he was hired as part of the resolution of a shareholder lawsuit. It looks like the shareholders won and VIVUS' old management lost. It also appears that the shareholder lawsuit came about because VIVUS hasn't been doing so well.

We are announcing the extension of tests involving
modifications to disability determination procedures authorized by 20
CFR 404.906 and 416.1406. These rules authorize us to test several
modifications to the disability determination procedures for
adjudicating claims for disability insurance benefits under title II of
the Social Security Act (Act) and for supplemental security income
payments based on disability under title XVI of the Act. ...

We are extending case
selection for the prototype and the single decisionmaker tests until
September 26, 2014.

None of these "tests" ever work well enough to be made national but they never seem to end. Why?

A coalition of progressive groups claiming to
represent millions of Americans is planning a multi-state effort urging
the expansion of Social Security benefits.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and Democracy For
America (DFA say they will be joined by several other groups including
MoveOn.org in putting out a series of TV and online ads planned for the
near future. ...

An email sent to the progressive coalition's supporters claims the
bills would give Social Security beneficiaries an additional $452 per
year by age 75 and $807 per year by 85. The bill would also eliminate the cap on how much of individuals'
earnings can be paid into Social Security. Currently, Social Security
contributions are limited to the first $113,000 of income.

Eliminating that cap is aimed at making the wealthy "pay their fair share," the email says....

Jul 24, 2013

VIVUS, Inc. ... which recently began selling the obesity drug Qsymia
(phentermine and topiramate extended-release) capsules CIV in the United
States, today announced that its Board of Directors has appointed
Michael Astrue to serve as its Chairman and Anthony Zook to serve as its
Chief Executive Officer ...

Mr. Astrue said, "We intend to move quickly on our four main goals: 1)
expand use of Qsymia through targeted patient and physician education;
2) find the right partner for Qsymia; 3) quickly create a pathway for
approval in Europe; and 4) eliminate expenses that are not essential to
expanding use of Qsymia....

Astrue had worked in the biotechnology field before becoming Commissioner of Social Security.

Jul 23, 2013

Julia Mariani, an attorney who had been representing Social Security disability claimants, has shut down her regular practice and taken up blogging on Social Security disability issues. So far, her blog, Disability Dunk Tank, has a different focus from mine. She is oriented just to disability issues and attuned to the issues that claimants face.

I wish there was a wider profusion of blogs on Social Security issues. Social Security has a huge impact on America. It deserves widespread coverage by non-traditional media.

U.S. District Court Judge Brian C. Wimes sentenced Charles Daniel Koss,
63, of Independence to seven years in federal prison and ordered Koss
to pay $212,987 in restitution to the Social Security Administration and
the Department of the Treasury. ...

Koss began receiving Social Security disability payments in 1987 for
myoneural disorder and hypertension. In 1994, according to court
documents, Koss began operating Embassy Mortgage, a real estate
business, with his wife in Blue Springs. Koss was working as a loan
officer and office manager for the business.

According to the indictment, when Koss learned that he would have to
repay the government, he created a false negotiable instrument – which
he called a “Registered Private Money Order” – purporting to draw on a
bogus trust account held by the U.S. Treasury. He allegedly utilized the
false negotiable instrument as payment for his debt and mailed it to
the Social Security Administration.

Koss subscribed to what is known as the redemption theory, the
indictment says, which claims that a “Birthright Trust” is created with
the U.S. Treasury when parents of a newborn child pledge the child’s
birth certificate to the government. Redemption theory involves bogus
claims that when the U.S. government abandoned the gold standard in
1933, it pledged its citizens as collateral so it could borrow money.
The movement also asserts that common citizens can gain access to funds
in secret accounts using obscure procedures and regulations.

According to the indictment, adherents of the redemption theory
sometimes call themselves “sovereign citizens.” The sovereign citizen
movement is a loosely organized collection of groups and individuals who
have adopted anarchist ideology. Its adherents claim that virtually all
existing government in the United States is illegitimate and they seek
to “restore” an idealized, minimalist government that never actually
existed.

Jul 20, 2013

The Social Security Administration sent Lanier Schriner a shocking
letter. It said the feds paid her too much more than 30 years ago, and
now they are coming to collect.
More than three decades ago, Schriner was just heading to college along
with small disability payments from her deceased father's Social
Security.
"I received it before I went to college and then after I turned 18," she
said. "Then you could still collect disability and disability payments
if you're going to school."
Just last week, the payments came back to haunt her.
"I got this letter, 30-some years later, just the other day, that said I owed a $167 back payment," Schriner said.
It says she was overpaid at some point, but there are no specifics in the letter.
The amount's not important to her, but the time that's passed.
"I think it's ridiculous," she said. "I can give evidence that I don't
owe it, but I'm not sure how to do that when I don't have any paperwork
from 30-some years ago," she said.

Jul 19, 2013

The Heritage Foundation has put out an impressive looking chart showing that in 1960 the average person received $6.39 for each dollar they had to pay in Social Security taxes but that by 2013 the average person was receiving only 92 cents for each dollar of taxes and that by 2030 this will be down to only 84 cents. Wow! QED! Social Security is a bad deal!

However, if you look at the study that the chart is based on, you notice that it's for "hypothetical workers with specific work histories and longevity characteristics." If you look further, you notice that those hypothetical workers don't become disabled nor do they die early leaving survivors who receive benefits, nor, in fact, do they have spouses who receive benefits on their account either before or after their death. In other words, the study is misleading since it excludes dependent benefits, survivor benefits and disability benefits.

Jul 18, 2013

Pete Peterson is the conservative billionaire who is a major financier in
the effort to dismantle, cut and privatize Social Security, Medicare
and Medicaid. Recently he and his foundation held a contest asking folks
to submit videos on why it is important to “fix” the national debt of
which, he and his foundation falsely claim, Social Security is a major
contributor.

Sometimes the best-laid plans for a propaganda campaign can go awry.
The winner of the $500 grand prize determined by popular vote on the
website came from the completely opposite side of Peterson’s cut Social
Security argument.

Jul 17, 2013

Social Security has issued new instructions on fees for attorneys and others representing Social Security claimants. The instructions have to do with fee agreement cases where the claimant appoints two or more people to represent him or her and then one or more of the attorneys or representatives withdraws. It would be an understatement to say the instructions are confusing. Take a look at these examples given in the instructions and see if you can tell me what the underlying theory is:

Example 2: The
claimant appointed two representatives from Firm A, one representative
from Firm B, and one representative who is a sole practitioner. The
representative from Firm B waived his or her fee from any source. The
sole practitioner waived charging and collecting a fee from the claimant
or any auxiliary beneficiaries because a third party entity will be
paying his or her fee. The two representatives from Firm A have an
approved fee agreement that each of them signed, and SSA determines a
fee of $6000. The representatives from Firm A will receive $3000 each.Example 3: The
claimant appointed two representatives from Firm A and one
representative from Firm B. One of the representatives from Firm A
signed a fee agreement. The second representative from Firm A and the
representative from Firm B both waived charging and collecting a fee
from any source. At the time of a favorable decision, the decision
maker approved the fee agreement; subsequently, SSA determines a fee of
$6000. The Firm A representative who had an approved fee agreement will
receive $3000, but the “waived share” of $3000 for the second
representative from Firm A should go to the claimant.

Jul 16, 2013

From a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) (footnotes omitted):

Claimants and their advocates or representatives may file a complaint against an ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] if they believe the ALJ was biased or engaged in improper conduct. ... The Division of Quality Service (DQS), within ODAR’s [Office of Disability Adjudication and Review's] Office of Executive Operations and Human Resources, reviews and resolves these complaints with the assistance of ODAR’s RO [Regional Office] staff, as appropriate. At the time of our review, DQS had assigned approximately 12 employees, including 2branch chiefs and permanent and detailed staff, to handle ALJ complaints ...

DQS closed 1,490 ALJ misconduct complaint cases in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. ... [W]e determined the median times for various processing time frames in FY2011.

The overall ODAR processing time, from the ALJ hearing to the closing of the complaint, was about 894 days since the AC needed to process the majority of the cases before DQS could initiate its own review.

DQS processing time was about 400 days.

RO processing time, a subset of DQS processing time, was about 201 days....

Of the complaints closed in FY 2011, DQS substantiated 4 percent. DQS closed approximately 11 percent of the cases because the ALJ left SSA before DQS completed a full review of the complaint. About 5 percent of the decision fields was left blank in the system. DQS determined the remaining 80 percent of the cases were unsubstantiated....

SSA established the DQS process to ensure “Every complaint will be reviewed or investigated in a timely manner by an official who was not involved in the alleged improper conduct.” [According to the notice published in the Federal Register at the time the system was established] ...

DQS management told us the Agency had not established time frames for reviewing and resolving complaints at every stage. However, during our review period, a DQS manager told us her office created its first report showing the age of pending complaints for internal use by DQS managers. In addition, this manager explained that DQS started tracking cases that were 1-year-old or older from the time DQS received them. DQS established a goal to close 60 percent of the year-old cases by the end of FY 2013. ...

[W]e reviewed one case DQS closed because the ALJ had retired. The ALJ held a hearing with the claimant in August 2007, and on December 2010 (3 years later), DQS closed the complaint before fully investigating the allegation because the ALJ had retired. We reviewed another case where 22 closed complaints related to 1 ALJ were labeled as ALJ No Longer With Agency after the ALJ was removed from the Agency because of improper behavior.

Certainly many of the complaints lack merit. Others are legitimate complaints but concern an isolated instance of bad judgment by an otherwise good ALJ. Still, there is a small minority, perhaps 1-2% of ALJs, who are just bad ALJs, some of them ALJs who suffer from serious psychiatric problems, some of them ALJs who suffer from serious character flaws, but all of them people who are just in the wrong line of work. This is not a functional system of dealing with complaints about ALJ misconduct. It takes far, far too long. Nothing is done for years and years about ALJs who are well known to be causing serious problems. Mostly, the agency just waits for the bad ALJs to retire. Not only do claimants and their attorneys deserve better, the vast majority of ALJs who do a good job deserve better than to be lumped in with these bad apples.

Jul 15, 2013

The Washington Examiner has a fairly predictable article that decries the number of people drawing disability benefits from Social Security. At least the piece has an interesting map showing the counties with the highest incident of disability. Hint: Disability hits hardest in rural areas represented in Congress by Republicans.

Jul 14, 2013

Take a look at the sort of thing that comes from claiming that because Social Security pressures you to hold more hearings and issue more decisions that the agency is forcing you to approve more disability claims. You're not getting back at your enemy, Social Security. You're not reducing the pressures you face to hear and decide cases. You're only aiding those who really want to influence how you decide cases or who just want to do away with your jobs altogether. The enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend.

I'm writing this as someone who agrees with you that ALJs are expected to hear and decide too many cases and that this reduces the quality of the process. I encourage you to stick to that message. I think it's a message that most people involved with the program have sympathy for. The "I'm being forced to approve claims" message is ridiculous.

Jul 13, 2013

More than $1.1 billion in unclaimed life insurance benefits have been
recovered nationwide after an investigation, New York regulators said
Wednesday.

The state's Department of Financial
Services said many insurance companies were not using lists of recent
deaths from the Social Security Administration to determine whether a
policy holder had died. That meant if family members did not know there
was a life insurance policy or forgot to file a claim, the policy went
unpaid.

New York regulators say they directed
insurers to use the Social Security master file to investigate unclaimed
policies -- just as insurers used the list of recently deceased to
determine when to stop annuity payments.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo said state
investigators working with insurance companies were able to make
payments to 100,000 consumers nationwide, including more than 25,000 New
York residents. The oldest claim dated to a death in 1960.

Jul 12, 2013

From a press release issued by the Chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee:

Yesterday, Ways and
Means Subcommittee on Social Security Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX)
introduced H.R. 1502, “The Social Security Disability Insurance and
Unemployment Benefits Double Dip Elimination Act of 2013.” The
legislation would keep people from receiving both Social Security
disability benefits and unemployment benefits at the same time. A
similar proposal was included in the President’s FY2014 budget with
estimated savings of $1 billion over 10 years.

In addition, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare is reporting that the House Social Security Subcommittee has introduced legislation to switch Social Security to the Chained CPI method of computing the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). There is a press release from the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee obliquely suggesting that this is under consideration. The word "bipartisan" is used over and over in this press release but the term "Chained CPI" is never mentioned.

Great Britain decided that there were too many people drawing disability benefits under their social security system. Their plan to deal with this was to get one in six disability recipients back to work. Their definition of "back to work" was quite modest -- holding down a job for three months or more -- yet according to The Guardian newspaper all they have been able to achieve is about one in twenty returning to work. If you were to apply that British definition of a successful return to work to recipients of U.S. Social Security disability benefits, I think we'd already be returning 5% or more of disability benefits recipients to work.
Returning large numbers of disability recipients to work isn't doable, no matter what you try. I keep harping on this point since members of Congress keep pursuing the return to work dream despite the overwhelming evidence that they're wasting their time.

Raymond E. Salva, a former Democratic member of the Missouri House of Representatives, has pleaded guilty to illegally taking $58,816 in federal disability payments while he was working as a state legislator earning $30,000 a year, according to the Office of the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration. ...

In May 2003, about five months after he started working as a state representative, the SSA conducted a review to find out whether Salva was still eligible for disability payments. “As part of that review, Salva completed a form in which he affirmed that he was not able to return to work and that he had not done any work since being disabled,” reads a press release from the SSA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG). ...

Jul 10, 2013

Take a look at Jillian Kay Melchior's snarl on National Review Online. She's mostly targeting Charlie Binder of Binder and Binder but she goes way beyond him. The whole piece is just incredibly angry and mean-spirited. Among other things, Melchior says that Social Security pays a lot of money to people who never claim to be disabled. I suppose that's true if you're talking about retirement and survivor's benefits but it's certainly not true if you're talking about disability benefits. She mostly writes about a book published by Charlie Binder on Social Security disability benefits. I haven't read the book but it certainly sounds harmless. However, Melchior describes it as a "rotten little book" and says that it shows that Binder has a "radical political stance" basically because Binder thinks that Social Security, particularly disability benefits, is a good idea and because he suggests that Social Security is not always fair to disability claimants. She objects to Binder advising claimants who go before an Administrative Law Judge to answer only the questions they are asked. Melchior must have had no experience with lawyers. This is standard legal advice for anyone testifying in any sort of legal proceeding. I expect that it's been standard advice literally for centuries. I have to repeat that this piece is just incredibly angry and mean-spirited. Even if you're no fan of Binder and Binder, you'll find this attack disgusting.

From the summary of a bill pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Social Security Administration (SSA): The bill includes nearly $12 billion, an increase of $534 million, for SSA’s administrative expenses. This includes a $441 million increase for program integrity activities and a $93 million increase in core administrative expenses for SSA to keep pace with an aging population and record-high workloads.

This bill was marked up in Subcommittee yesterday. It will now go to the full committee.
The House of Representatives has yet to produce a draft appropriations bill covering Social Security. However, the House's budget plan for the Labor-HHS appropriations, the one that covers Social Security, is 25.9% lower than the Senate Labor-HHS appropriation bill.
The Senate bill would worsen service at Social Security. A 25.9% decrease in Social Security's operating budget would lead to unimaginable consequences.

Jul 9, 2013

Since I noticed that payments from the Social Security Disability Trust Fund have reached near stasis, I've been wondering about that projection from Social Security's Chief Actuary that the Disability Trust Fund will be exhausted in 2016. If you look at that projection, one of the first things you notice is that there isn't just one prediction. There are three. The one commonly cited is the "intermediate" prediction that the Disability Trust Fund will run out of money in 2016. Another is the "high cost" or pessimistic prediction that the Disability Trust Fund will run out of money in 2015. Another is the "low cost" or optimistic prediction that the Disability Trust Fund will not run out of money. That's right. The optimistic projection is that even though the Disability Trust Fund is losing money now, that this situation will turn around before the Disability Trust Fund ever runs out of money.
How do the three projections look given the actual results so far in 2013? Let's compare:2013 Actual -- through May:Income 2013: $48.1 billion, an increase of 4.7% over the equivalent time period last year
Outgo: $58.4 billion, an increase of 3.0% over the equivalent time period last year

Pessimistic Projection:
Income total for 2013: $110.2 billion, an increase of 1.0% over 2012
Outgo total for 2013: $147.0 billion, an increase of 4.8% over 2012

Intermediate Projection:
Income total for 2013:$111.4 billion, an increase of 2.1% over 2012
Outgo total for 2013: $144.8 billion, an increase of 3.2% over 2012

Optimistic Projection:
Income total for 2013: $112.5 billion, an increase of 3.1% over 2012
Outgo total for 2013: $142.8 billion, an increase of 1.8% over 2012

Thus, the increase in income so far in 2013 is much greater than even the optimistic projection while the outgo is a little better than the intermediate projection, suggesting that the optimistic projection would probably be the closest of the three projections to what has happened so far in 2013. Even that may understate how good these numbers are. I was comparing the first five months of 2012 with the first five months of 2013 to get that 3.0% increase in actual benefit payments but if you look at the last nine months, there's actually been a 0.6% decrease in disability payments!
There's another, simpler way of looking at this which confirms the trend line shown above. The pessimistic projection was that the Disability Trust Fund would go down by an average of $3.1 billion per month in 2013, the intermediate projection was $2.8 billion per month and the optimistic projection was $2.5 billion per month. So far in 2013, the Disability Trust Fund has gone down by an average of $2.3 billion per month, which is significantly better than even the most optimistic projection of the Chief Actuary.
Of course, what happens over the course of five months won't necessarily tell us what will happen over the course of the next few years but unless you're expecting a new economic downturn or a big increase in disability claims, things are looking pretty good for the Disability Trust Fund at the moment. If you're a Republican don't get excited about the prospect of using the exhaustion of the Disability Trust Fund as a means of forcing major cuts in Social Security disability benefits. That may never happen. If it does happen, it probably won't happen until after the 2016 election and that's a long way off.

Jul 8, 2013

The SAA [Staff Attorney Adjudicator] Program [also known as Senior Attorney program] has contributed to both an increase in adjudicative capacity and improved average processing time. However, the number of SAA OTRs[On The Records] peaked in FY [Fiscal Year] 2010, and the decline continued through the first 5 months of FY 2013. Overall, SAA and ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] OTRs have been decreasing since FY 2008, consistent with ODAR management’s predictions. In addition, in an FY 2012 quality review, the Office of Quality Performance noticed a significant drop in its decisional agreement rate on SAA OTRs, though the Agency did not have sufficient data to determine whether the issue was specific to SAAs or more broadly related to OTRs. Finally, hearing office managers were interested in additional training and greater duties for their SAAs. Given the expected decline in SAA OTRs, which was the primary purpose of the SAA Program, SSA should decide before any future extension of the program, or expansion of the SAA corps, whether the program needs to be modified to address future hearing office workload needs. ...

The SAA Program has contributed to hearing office productivity and timeliness since its introduction in FY 2008, though SAA OTR decisions peaked in FY 2010. SAA OTR decisions decreased by 31 percent in FY 2012 and continued dropping through the first 5 months of FY 2013. OTR decisions as a percent of total dispositions, whether decided by SAAs or ALJs, also decreased over the same 5-year period, from about 17 percent in FY 2008 to about 10 percent in FY 2012. An OQP [Office of Quality Performance] quality review of FY 2012 SAA OTR decisions found a significant decrease in the decisional agreement rate from prior years. However, the Agency has not conducted similar quality reviews focused on ALJ OTR decisions, so we could not determine whether the quality issues related to SAAs specifically or OTRs in general. ...

Social Security has employed non-ALJ attorneys for decades. They have assisted ALJs, mostly by writing decisions for them. One of their other duties has been to look for cases in which it would be appropriate to do an OTR. OTRs help get favorable decisions out more quickly to the most severely disabled people. The non-ALJ attorney would advise an ALJ that a particular case was appropriate for an OTR and, usually, but not always, the ALJ would agree and the favorable decision would be issued with the ALJ's signature. Social Security decided it would be best to eliminate the middleman -- the ALJ -- and let the attorneys, referred to as Senior Attorneys or SAAs issue the OTRs on their own authority, thereby saving the time that the ALJs had spent reviewing cases identified for possible OTR. ALJs as a group have always objected to SAAs issuing decisions in their own right. Whatever anyone thinks of the SAA program, there's no doubt that the SAA program helped work down the terrible hearing backlogs. Those backlogs are less terrible now but we're certainly not at backlog levels that anyone should be comfortable with.
Why did SAA decisions decrease after 2010? The 2010 election results are the obvious underlying reason but exactly why the change occurred may be a more difficult question. Was it a desire to somehow placate the new Republican majority in the House by approving fewer claims? Was it that then-Commissioner Astrue only used SAA because of pressure from the prior Democratic majority in the House and felt free to wind down the SAA program after Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives? Was it because reduced staffing forced the attorneys to stick to writing decisions for cases ALJs had heard instead of reviewing cases as SAAs? Was it simply because the backlog had come down enough that then-Commissioner Astrue thought that the SAA expedient could be phased out?
I have no idea why OQP found a decrease in decisional agreement. Since there is no gold standard against which to measure SAA or ALJ decisions, I regard any report that OQP produces on decisional quality to be worthless. In any case, I'm confident in saying that there was no real change in SAA decisions. The change was at OQP.
The most interesting question to me is why ALJ OTRs decreased. I can't explain it but I've certainly seen greatly increased ALJ reluctance to issue OTRs in the last three years or so. It's not unusual for me to have a hearing where the ALJ, in effect, tells me before the hearing begins that he or she has already decided to approve the claim. The ALJ wants to make sure I know so I get the hearing over quickly. This seems to be an effort to disguise an OTR. What's the point of this? Are ALJs afraid that if they do too many OTRs that something will happen to them? If so, who or what put this fear in them? What's the threat? To me, this just seems pointless. Some cases are appropriate for OTR, regardless of who the decision maker is. Who wants to slow down the process of approving people who obviously deserve to be approved?

Jul 7, 2013

With an anxious eye toward the coming debt-ceiling negotiations,
House Republicans are drafting what members call a “menu” of mandatory
spending cuts to offer the White House in exchange for raising the
country’s borrowing limit.

This menu is more a matrix of politically fraught options for the
Obama administration to consider: Go small on cuts and get a short
extension of the debt ceiling. Go big – by agreeing to privatize Social
Security, for example – and get a deal that will raise the ceiling for
the rest of Obama’s term.

For a more modest medium range extension of the budget ceiling, all Obama would have to agree to is ending Medicaid.

Social Security has issued updated numbers on payments of fees
to attorneys and some others for representing Social Security
claimants. These fees are withheld and paid by Social Security but come
out of the back benefits of the claimants involved. The attorneys and
others who have their fees withheld pay a user fee for this privilege. Since these fees are usually
paid at the same time that the claimant is paid, these numbers show how
quickly or slowly Social Security is able to get claimants paid after a
favorable determination on their claims.

Jul 6, 2013

Social Security has issued new instructions on dealing with same sex marriage cases. Social Security's Administrative Law Judges are now instructed to cancel any scheduled hearing dealing with this issue and to not make a decision in any case that has already been heard. I don't know how many of these cases there may be but I'd bet the vast majority of them are couples who still live in the state in which they were married. I know there are issues with cases where the parties to the marriage have moved to a state that refuses to recognize same sex marriage but there is no issue when the parties live in the state where they were married. How long should it take to write instructions for these cases?

Jul 4, 2013

Jul 3, 2013

We keep hearing that Social Security disability benefit payments are soaring. They're going through the roof. It's ruinous how rapidly disability payments are rising. Funny thing about that. It's not happening, at least not anymore. Below is a chart showing Disability Insurance Benefits payments over the last two years. I know the chart contains some extraneous information but I couldn't copy just the month and the total benefit payments. Notice that benefit payments have gone up in the last two years by 8%, which is certainly significant but hardly a disastrous increase considering the aging of the baby boom population and considering the 3.6% cost of living adjustment at the end of 2011 and the 1.7% cost of living adjustment at the end of 2012. More interesting is that the increase in benefit payments has ground to a halt over about the last year. We seem to be near stasis. This is exactly what the actuaries have been predicting. Once the number of baby boomers reaching full retirement age, making them no longer eligible for disability benefits, started equaling the number reaching their prime years for disability, the boom in disability claims would be over. Well, it's happened. It's right there in the numbers you see below. Total benefit payments in June 2013 were less than they were nine months earlier in September 2012, despite the intervening cost of living adjustment.

Jul 2, 2013

From a June 28 letter from Social Security's Chief Actuary Stephen Goss to Senator Marco Rubio:

I am writing in response to your request for estimates of the long-range financial effects on Social Security of Senate Bill S. 744, as reported out by the Judiciary Committee, amended, and passed by the Senate on June 27. ...

We estimate that enactment of this Bill would increase asset reserves for the combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds by $284 billion by the end of 2024, and would extend solvency of the OASDI program for an additional 2 years ...

Jul 1, 2013

I'm hearing reports that Social Security's Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) offices nationwide are experiencing telephone difficulties today. It's not clear to me whether this is affecting other parts of Social Security as well.

I wrote last week that Social Security seemed unprepared for the decision of the Supreme Court holding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Some agencies were prepared for this decision. See the memo from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued just a day after Social Security issued staff instructions to hold all claims filed by those in same sex marriages.

There is a report of delays in direct deposits of Social Security benefits in the Wichita, KS area. If this report is accurate, the fault lies not with Social Security but with the Department of the Treasury which processes the direct doposits -- but Social Security will get the calls.

The Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) has posted updated figures
for the number of employees at Social Security.These figures do not
show the effects of reductions in overtime at Social Security.

March 2013 63,777

December 2012 64,538

September 2012 65,113

June 2012 65,282

March
2012 65,257

December 2011 65,911

September 2011 67,136

June 2011 67,773

March 2011 68,700

December 2010 70,270

June 2010 69,600

March 2010 66,863

December 2009 67,486

September 2009 67,632

December 2008 63,733

September 2008 63,990

September 2007 62,407

September 2006 63,647

September 2005 66,147

September 2004 65,258

September 2003 64,903

September 2002 64,648

September 2001 65,377

September 2000 64,521

Since the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in January 2011, there has been a 9% decline in the number of employees at the Social Security Administration. 6,493 employees lost in about two and a half years at a time when the agency's workload is burgeoning.